Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
k8scortex-mcp

k8scortex-mcp

by apatilgtn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

update_ingress

Merges new rules and annotations into an existing Kubernetes Ingress, with optional dry-run for safe preview.

Instructions

Updates an existing Ingress. Merges new rules or annotations into the existing Ingress.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "namespace": "<namespace>",
      "ingressName": "<ingressName>"
    },
    "name": "update_ingress"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rulesNoRules to append or replace (advanced usage)
dryRunNoIf true, simulates the action without making changes
clusterNoTarget cluster name (default: 'default')
namespaceYesThe Kubernetes namespace
annotationsNoAnnotations to merge
ingressNameYesThe name of the Ingress to update

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'merges' but does not specify whether updates are idempotent, what happens if the ingress doesn't exist, authorization requirements, or any side effects beyond the merge.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that conveys the core functionality. However, it could benefit from slight restructuring (e.g., separate sentence for merge behavior) for even better readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, the effect of the dryRun parameter (though it's documented in schema), or potential risks and prerequisites.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that rules and annotations are merged rather than replaced, which goes beyond the schema's documentation of each parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the action ('Updates') and resource ('existing Ingress'), and specifies the mode ('Merges new rules or annotations'), distinguishing it from create or delete operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like create or delete, or when a merge is preferred over a replace operation. The description does not provide usage context or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools